Four years after the outbreak of the conflict that has shaken the balance of the European continent, the Ukrainian landscape now appears locked in a dramatic contradiction: on the one hand, a military front that seems unable to deliver a decisive victory to either side; on the other, the opening of a trilateral table under the aegis of the United States. Speaking to SIR news agency, Alessandro Politi, Director of the NATO Defense College Foundation (NDCF), explains that the presidency of Donald Trump undoubtedly has a strong impact on the negotiations, yet peace, though strongly invoked, is a “long and tortuous road”. Meanwhile, years on, the damage is being assessed: not only civilian and military casualties, but also the economic and demographic situation of Moscow and Kyiv – both marked by losses that will take generations to recover from – and the intricate issue of the occupied territories. When the weapons finally fall silent, the real challenge will be managing the legacy of a war that has already compromised the strategic future of both countries.
The trilateral between the United States, Russia and Ukraine has not yet produced results. Should we have expected this?
Negotiating peace is far more difficult than starting a war. We should remember that, to date, there have already been 17 attempts to stop the war, as early as 2022. The very fact that the trilateral has been launched is already very important. Until a few months ago, it was in doubt.
Is it a step forward that they have met in a trilateral format?
Yes, there have been face-to-face sessions. Previously, that was absolutely impossible. The territorial issue is clearly difficult because it concerns a unilateral withdrawal from territories that have not been conquered. The Kremlin says that a meeting between Zelensky and Putin would be possible only in Moscow. That is part of the game. In the past, however, even a face-to-face meeting would have been ruled out. I do not see the glass as half full. Nevertheless, the fact that meetings are being discussed is important because, if the parties do not enter into direct contact, everything becomes far more complicated.
The fact that trilateral meetings have finally taken place under American auspices is significant progress.
We are not yet close to peace. Peace will not be achieved in 24 hours or in three months; no one should have any illusions. It is true, however, that the head of the Ukrainian delegation (Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council) has said that there have been substantial and intense discussions. The details cannot be disclosed at this stage. Everyone wants the war to end. Unfortunately, it will not be tomorrow but in months’ time. Even the peace settlements of the Second World War, concluded after the complete defeat of the enemies, required at least two years of preparatory work among the Allies. We are not yet near the end of the war, but without these steps forward, no further steps towards peace will be possible.
The war is weighing heavily on the economies of both countries.
Clearly, the economic situation has deteriorated for both Russia and Ukraine. Before the war, Russia was more prosperous and had enviable public finances, which it mostly squandered on the conflict. Demographically, too, neither country is in a good position. Both have lost many lives that cannot be recovered with a snap of the fingers; it will take 20 years. This is therefore a war that has compromised the future of these two countries to a greater or lesser extent.
Will Ukraine ultimately yield on the partition of the territories?
The government in Kyiv – it is clear – has no desire to give in, even if only for understandable domestic reasons. One of the most difficult points is that Putin wants the whole of the Donbas, including territories that are not occupied, and for Ukraine this is unacceptable, as well as setting a dangerous international precedent. There have been local Ukrainian counter-attacks, with limited results. Before any agreement, the fighting becomes even more intense, in the hope of achieving political results, at an incredible cost in lives. It is an uncertain calculation, but it forms part of political judgement in all wars.
Should those who seek peace place their trust in the work of Donald Trump?
The Americans are doing important work. In the end, however, it is the two leaderships that must withdraw from unsustainable situations. The first that must withdraw is the Russian leadership, for strategic reasons, focusing on what has been substantively achieved and not insisting on unreasonable details. Putin’s leverage over Trump is diminishing over time: the president is losing interest and, with a possible defeat in the mid-term elections, Trump could find himself weakened. In these four years of war, one lesson has been learned: at the geopolitical level, more can be gained through a hybrid operation than through an outright war. Putin has learned this at a high price and may emerge politically diminished.
